6.2. Building dedication for ?Titus

Description:: Fifteen fragments from blocks of a white marble architrave, with a simple moulding above and three fasciae. When complete, average height H. 0.495, D. 0.765 a & b. two adjoining fragments, with upper and lower edges surviving. (a: left edge survives, W. 1.02 × H. 0.51 × D. 0.69; b: W. 1.08 × H. 0.515 × D. 0.73). c. complete block (W. 1.73 × H. 0.48 × D. 0.69); . Fragments:d. without edges (W. 0.38 × H. 0.31 × D. 0.31); e. with upper moulding surviving, no other edges. f. without edges (W. 0.41 × H. 0.22 × D. 0.20);g. with upper moulding and right edge (W. 0.09 × H. 0.31 × D. 0.32); h. without edges (W. 0.30 × H. 0.20 × D. 0.23); i. with right edge (W. 0.50 × H. 0.30 × D. 0.45); k. without edges (W. 0.27 × H. 0.25 × D. 0.08); l, complete to left (H. 0.13, W. 0.385); m: broken at both ends (W. 0.80, H. 0.13); n, complete to left; o: complete to left; p. complete to right (H. 0.50, W. 1.03, D. c. 0.55).
Text:: Inscribed on the upper of three fasciae, average H. 0.0145; there is a simple moulding above the upper fascia.
Letters:: Later first to early second century A.D., with noticeably broad and comparatively shallow trenches; c. 0.075-0.09, showing slight variations in cutting and shape from piece to piece, no doubt because several workmen wre employed
Date:: Flavian, A.D. 79-96 (probable reign, architecture, lettering)
Findspot:: a-k at various points during excavation of the eastern part of the Basilica; l and p 'Geyre, Südseite (Kubitschek); l, m, n and o beside the path along the south-west side of the Acropolis, quite close to the martyrion.
Original Location:: Ten fragments cetainly, four probably and one possibly come from the West colonnade of the Basilica; it is unlikely but not quite excluded that some pieces came from the East colonnade.
Last recorded location:: a-k, l-m on site in the Basilica; n, o, p, in fields to east of Basilica (2006)
History of discovery:: l and p recorded by Kubitschek (K.iii.26); a-k excavated by the NYU expedition in 1977 and 1978 (Portico 11); l, m, n and o recorded by Reynolds.
Bibliography:: l and m published from K's notebook by Cormack, ABSA no. 12; others unpublished. ished.
Text constituted from:: Kubitschek notebook; Transcription (Reynolds) This edition Reynolds (2007).

a: 1 [·· ? ·· Καίσ]αρι v. Σεβα[?στῷ ·· ? ··]
b: 1 [·· ? ··?Τί]τῳ leaf Καί[?σαρι ·· ? ··]
c: 1 [·· ? ··Παυ] | λλεῖνα v. Ἱεροκλ | [·· ? ··]
d: 1[·· ? ··]Α[·· ? ··]
e: 1 [·· ? ··]Η v. Ε[·· ? ··]
f: 1[·· ? ··]Κ̣ΑΠ̣[·· ? ··]
g: 1[·· ? ··]Τ̣[·· ? ··]
h: 1[·· ? ··]Τ̣[·· ? ··]
j: 1[·· ? ··]Λ̣Ν̣ v. | [·· ? ··]
k: 1[·· ? ··]ΝẸ[·· ? ··]
l: 1[·· ? ··] | ΑΣΙ[·· ? ··]
m: 1 [·· ? ··] v. ἀνείκη̣[το·· ? ··]
n: 1[·· ? ··] | ΑΝΤ[·· ? ··]
o: 1[·· ? ··] | Ε̣[·· ? ··]
p: 1 [·· ? ··]ωνος dash ΔΕΚ[·· ? ··]

a: 1[ - - - ····]ΑΡΙ ΣΕΒΑ[··· - - - ]
b: 1[ - - - ··]ΤΩ leaf ΚΑΙ[···· - - - ]
c: 1[ - - - ···]ΛΛΕΙΝΑ ΙΕΡΟΚΛ[ - - - ]
d: 1[ - - - ]Α[ - - - ]
e: 1[ - - - ]Η Ε[ - - - ]
f: 1[ - - - ]·Α·[ - - - ]
g: 1[ - - - ]·[ - - - ]
h: 1[ - - - ]·[ - - - ]
j: 1[ - - - ]·· [ - - - ]
k: 1[ - - - ]Ν·[ - - - ]
l: 1[ - - - ]ΑΣΙ[ - - - ]
m: 1[ - - - ] ΑΝΕΙΚ·[·· - - - ]
n: 1[ - - - ]ΑΝΤ[ - - - ]
o: 1[ - - - ]·[ - - - ]
p: 1[ - - - ]ΩΝΟΣ dash ΔΕΚ[ - - - ]

<ab>

Καίσ

</supplied>

αρι

Σεβα

στῷ

</supplied>

</ab>

</div>

<ab>

Τί

</supplied>

τῳ

Καί

σαρι

</supplied>

</ab>

</div>

<ab>

Παυ

</supplied>

λλεῖνα

Ἱεροκλ

</ab>

</div>

<ab>

</orig>

</ab>

</div>

<ab>

</orig>

</orig>

</ab>

</div>

<ab>

</unclear>

</unclear>

</orig>

</ab>

</div>

<ab>

</unclear>

</orig>

</ab>

</div>

<ab>

</unclear>

</orig>

</ab>

</div>

<ab>

λν

</unclear>

</orig>

</ab>

</div>

<ab>

</unclear>

</orig>

</ab>

</div>

<ab>

ασι

</orig>

</ab>

</div>

<ab>

<orig >

ἀνείκ

</unclear>

το

</supplied>

</orig>

</ab>

</div>

<ab>

αντ

</orig>

</ab>

</div>

<ab>

</unclear>

</orig>

</ab>

</div>

<ab>

ωνος

δεκ

</orig>

</ab>

</div>

Apparatus

Fragments l to o are very probably elements of the same architrave as a-k; p is rather less certain, since it was seen some 50 metres away from l and m, and in the Kubitschek drawing it has a leaf stop of a type different from the only other surviving stop, on b.

b might be restored as:

i. [·· ? ··Τί]τῳ leaf Καί[σαρι ·· ? ··]

or (a and b)

[·· ? ··Καίσαρι Σεβάσ]τῳ leaf καὶ [·· ? ··]

[·· ? ·· Σεβάσ]τῳ leaf Καί[σαρι [·· ? ··]]

f: Κ is very incomplete - perhaps Λ; Π might be Ε.

k: Ε very incomplete, could be Σ.

l: of rthe fourth letter only part of a base serif survives, but its shape suggests perhaps alpha or lambda. If it were alpha, this would probably be from the name of the emperor Vespasian, whether used in his own title or those of his sons, and would be associated with a, and perhaps b.. If it were lambda, this could be from βασιλική, describing a building.

m: certainly from ἀνείκητος, ου, and so quite probably from an imperial title.

p: The stop after the first word is different in kind from that in b, the only other stop we have; Kubitschek's drawing of the epsilon is also a little different from any in a-o. It would be rash to propsoe arestoration, but it is probable that the second word made some reference to δέκα, 10.

Translation:

a and b, perhaps Ti]tus Caesar Augustus [ . . .

c. Pauleina daughter or wife of ?Hierokles

Commentary:

Of the dedication only an imperial reference is recognisable, but it is very incomplete, and while architecture 9on which see Stinson, forthcoming) points to the Flavian period, and lettring is acceptable s of that period, it is not certain who was the reigning emperor involved. Fragment l, ΑΣΙ, might come from the name Vespasianus, but this was also Titus' name and would have figured in the patronymics of Titus or of Domitian; but itt could also be part of the word βασιλική, from the formula βασιλική στοά (although we do not know at present that this was the Aphrodisian building named as a basilica in antiquity). Fragment m, ἀνείκη̣[τος], is very likely to be an imperial epithet, although an unofficial one at this date (S. Weinstock, Harvard theological Review 50 (1957), 211-247). Apparently eschewed by Vespasian, it appears in the poets both for Titus (Martial, De Spectaculis 6.20) and for Domitian (Statius, Silvae 4.7.49f.), but has as yet only appeared in inscriptions for Domitian ((unpublished), and see commentary on 11.104). The case for Domitian is, therefore, the stronger, but Titus cannot be quite excluded. If the emperor was Domitian, the date should be later than A.D. 84 when he accepted the title Germanics, which appears without ἀνείκητος in 8.236; the occasion of the second triumph in 89 might seem likely.

The name Paulleina in the nominative case (c) suggests that the building was donated by citizens, like the Sebasteion, and was not a civic undertaking. Paulleina may be the Claudia Pauleina, stephanephoros in AD 119 (11.412) but is not certainly so. Here family was probably a romanising Greek one, certainly so if the Hierokles (or Hieroketianos) named after her is her father; but he could, perhaps, be her husband.